What a great country we live in! Couple fined for not hosting same-sex marriage

[OSUBlazerfan]

http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/couple-fined-for-refusing-to-host-same-sex-wedding-on-their-farm/

Cynthia and Robert Gifford are caught in a same-sex nightmare. They’ve been forced to defend themselves against claims that they’re lesbian-hating homophobes.
“We respect and care for everyone!’’ Cynthia Gifford told me. “We had an openly gay man working for us this past season,’’ she said.
“We’ve had a woman who’s transitioning to be a man. We don’t discriminate against anyone.’’
But the government of the state of New York sees things differently. The Giffords, who own the bucolic Liberty Ridge Farm in upstate New York, were ordered to pay a total of $13,000 — a $10,000 fine to the state and another $1,500 to each member of a lesbian couple to compensate them for “mental anguish.’’ All because the Giffords, devout Christians, refused to hold a same-sex wedding ceremony on the property on which they live, work and have raised a daughter, 17, and a son, 21.
“This is scary,’’ Cynthia Gifford said. “It’s scary for all Americans.” Fifteen years ago, Cynthia, 54, and Robert Gifford, 55, opened to the public their farm in upstate Schaghticoke, near Albany, where they’ve lived for 25 years. They host an annual, family-friendly fall festival, which ends Tuesday, offering such countrified fare as a corn maze and pig-racing shows.
In summer, wedding ceremonies and receptions also are held on the farm. But once already-booked nuptials take place, the Giffords will no longer schedule new ceremonies. Only receptions — including same-sex ones — will go on. What happened?
Modal Trigger
Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa Erwin
Photo: AP
Cynthia Gifford took a life-changing two- to three-minute phone call in 2012 from a woman she’d never met, Melisa Erwin, who was looking for a place to hold her wedding. A wedding — to another woman.
Gifford said she told her, politely, that she would not book a same-sex wedding ceremony at the farm.
She didn’t know it at the time, but the woman’s then-fianceé, Jennifer McCarthy, recorded the conversation. The pair then filed a formal complaint with the state Division of Human Rights. And this past August, an administrative law judge from The Bronx, Migdalia Pares, decreed that the farm was a “public accommodation’’ and ordered the penalties, after ruling that the Giffords had violated state law by discriminating against the two women.
Incredible. The women, now both 31, currently live in upstate New York. They found another venue at which to get married, and each woman now uses the surname McCarthy. They declined my request for an interview.
“They were devastated when they heard that Liberty Ridge Farm would not take their business because of who they are,’’ the ladies’ lawyer, Mariko Hirose of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told me.
“NYCLU supports religious freedom,’’ she said. “That still doesn’t make it OK for businesses to break existing law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, race, sex, disability, religion or other protected categories.’’
“We’ve gone from tolerance to compulsion,’’ the Giffords’ lawyer, James Trainor, told me. “State government should not be forcing people to violate their own religious beliefs, nor should they be forced to make a choice between making a living and violating their own faith.’’ Financial losses have forced the Giffords to let go a full-time event planner.
“I think there is an effort under way to change the social order,’’ said Trainor. “One way is by redefining marriage.’’
Trainor is allied with Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization that seeks justice for people of faith. Last month, he filed an appeal with the state Appellate Division on behalf of the Giffords, seeking to get their money returned — and setting the stage for New York state’s first legal battle pitting one couple’s constitutional right to religious freedom against another couple’s right to get married wherever they please.
Readers know that I’ve come to support same-sex marriage. But I can’t understand why clergymen and -women are free in New York to opt out of joining in marriage homosexual couples, but the law gives not a lick of respect to non-ordained people of faith.
In 2011, days before New York state’s Marriage Equality Act legalized same-sex marriage statewide, I wrote about two New York state Refuseniks — town clerks who refused to unite Jills and Janes and Adams and Steves. One woman quit her job, another quit performing all weddings, due to their religiously held beliefs that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Since then:
 In Oregon, Christian bakers who refused to sell a wedding cake to two lesbians face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
In Washington state, an elderly Christian florist could face hefty fines after she refused to provide wedding flowers to two gay men.
A Christian Colorado baker is appealing a judge’s decision ordering him to start baking wedding cakes for homosexuals and to provide his staff with sensitivity training, after he refused to create a wedding cake for two gay guys.
 The US Supreme Court this year declined to hear the case of a Christian photographer from New Mexico who claimed that refusing to shoot the commitment ceremony of two lesbians was an expression not only of her constitutional right to religious freedom, it was protected by her First Amendment right to free speech. New Mexico’s Supreme Court and the state’s Human Rights Commission have decreed that her refusal to shoot equaled unlawful discrimination.
Robert and Cynthia Gifford are decent people being punished for acting on their faith. This kind of government bigotry should appeal to no one, whether he or she (or one of no gender) identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, androgynous . . . or even straight.

 

[magnifier661]

I'm going to send her $13,000 for her mental anguish

 

[blue32]

Hmmmm... tough call. If you're a business I believe that you should have to practice your business by the law of the state you are in. If your religious views or other such things make it so you'd violate local or state law then I believe you shouldn't be in business in the first place. Just my thoughts on this...

 

[HailBlazers]

Marriage, is a religious institution, just my thoughts on this...

 

[magnifier661]

Hmmmm... tough call. If you're a business I believe that you should have to practice your business by the law of the state you are in. If your religious views or other such things make it so you'd violate local or state law then I believe you shouldn't be in business in the first place. Just my thoughts on this...

But wouldn't your religious views trump the state law in discrimination? So now churches must allow gay people in, even if their religious views forbid it?

Don't get me wrong. I'm in full support for gay marriages and even having gay people in church, but I'm not in support for a government to fine people for not going against what their religious views are.

 

[blue32]

But wouldn't your religious views trump the state law in discrimination? So now churches must allow gay people in, even if their religious views forbid it?

Don't get me wrong. I'm in full support for gay marriages and even having gay people in church, but I'm not in support for a government to fine people for not going against what their religious views are.

I am not sure. I consider business and church two separate things.

When in business there are strict rules in place for discrimination (among other things) for all businesses, equally. I don't believe that a persons moral views should ever trump state/local business law because then you start getting into a very bad place. It'd be like a store owner (who believes in Aryan nation shit) going back to 50-60's era and saying "no black people allowed in" as an example.

 

[magnifier661]

I am not sure. I consider business and church two separate things.

When in business there are strict rules in place for discrimination (among other things) for all businesses, equally. I don't believe that a persons moral views should ever trump state/local business law because then you start getting into a very bad place. It'd be like a store owner (who believes in Aryan nation shit) going back to 50-60's era and saying "no black people allowed in" as an example.

Ah you got a point... But didn't the lady say they can have a reception but not a ceremony? The ceremony is done by a pastor or minister in a "religious building" most likely. If not, then I guess the stage had a point.

 

[MarAzul]

Marriage, is a religious institution, just my thoughts on this...

Rep!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

You guys ran off the lesbian that posted here.

 

[MarAzul]

I am not sure. I consider business and church two separate things.

When in business there are strict rules in place for discrimination (among other things) for all businesses, equally. I don't believe that a persons moral views should ever trump state/local business law because then you start getting into a very bad place. It'd be like a store owner (who believes in Aryan nation shit) going back to 50-60's era and saying "no black people allowed in" as an example.

Pretty much the otherway around. Law should not be created that interfere with a persons religion This country was never conceived to do so nor was any state.

 

[MarAzul]

You guys ran off the lesbian that posted here.

It was nip and tuck whom would be run off first.

 

[OneLifeToLive]

Pretty much the otherway around. Law should not be created that interfere with a persons religion This country was never conceived to do so nor was any state.

But that was 200 years ago...we have progressed since then!

 

[MarAzul]

But that was 200 years ago...we have progressed since then!

OMG!

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

My favorite is when people think we've evolved so much that the mention of church and state in the Constitution shouldn't hold up, but then I see some of those people think there should be no gun control because that's in the Constitution.

My comment is not specific to people in this thread, but I've seen people with those polarizing viewpoints, and this thread conjures up memories of those people.

 

[MarAzul]

Two Thousand years ago, they were feeding Christians to the Lions. Now we are feeding them to liberal judges. Some see progress.

 

[OneLifeToLive]

OMG!

Sorry. Couldn't resist...

But those are the talking points

 

[MarAzul]

Sorry. Couldn't resist...

But those are the talking points

And I think they believe it too. Just an indicator that they have no clue why or what.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I still don't quite understand how a business can refuse service for things like dress code, for things like open carry of firearms, but once there is an outlet to erode/attack due to religious beliefs or lack thereof it's an issue.

I recognize that the term "Protected Class" will be tossed around, and that's fine--but it does not seem logical.

 

[bluefrog]

It makes me sad to see people use my religion to justify discrimination.

 

[OneLifeToLive]

It makes me sad to see people use my religion to justify discrimination.

What are the guiding principles of your religion?

 

[MarAzul]

It makes me sad to see people use my religion to justify discrimination.

No one is discriminating.

Here is the definition of Wife, in the dictionary.
1. A married woman; a man's partner in marriage


There is no 2.

 

[MarAzul]

Then we have husband as in the dictionary.

1. A married man; a woman's partner in marriage.

There is no 2.

We do see a verb though,

1. Use cautiously and frugally
"husband your energy for the ascent to the summit"

There is no 2.

 

[OneLifeToLive]

No one is discriminating.

Here is the definition of Wife, in the dictionary.
1. A married woman; a man's partner in marriage


There is no 2.

You are referencing your 1968 Funk & Wagnalls right?

 

[MarAzul]

No it's the one on my computer here, click on a word with CTL down and shazam, you get the definition.

Wordweb is the name

http://wordweb.info/free/

 

[OneLifeToLive]

No it's the one on my computer here, click on a word with CTL down and shazam, you get the definition.

Wordweb is the name

http://wordweb.info/free/

I'm kidding

Give it 10 years the progressives will have it redefined.

 

[barfo]

I still don't quite understand how a business can refuse service for things like dress code, for things like open carry of firearms, but once there is an outlet to erode/attack due to religious beliefs or lack thereof it's an issue.

I recognize that the term "Protected Class" will be tossed around, and that's fine--but it does not seem logical.

Really, you don't see a difference? People can choose to dress or not dress according to the code, they can choose to carry or not carry weapons, but they cannot choose whether to be black, female, gay, etc.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/husband

n.
1. A man joined to a another person in marriage; a male spouse.
2. Chiefly British A manager or steward, as of a household.
3. Archaic

See #1.

Merrim-Webster:

the male partner in a marriage

 

[BrianFromWA]

Since I disagree with the analogy, it's probably not worth continuing.

 

[barfo]

Marriage, is a religious institution, just my thoughts on this...

That would be great, if that was true. Unfortunately there are a whole lot of laws and tax rules that involve marriage. Get rid of all of those, and you can define marriage however you want.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Really, you don't see a difference? People can choose to dress or not dress according to the code, they can choose to carry or not carry weapons, but they cannot choose whether to be black, female, gay, etc.

barfo

All those people are free though. Lock em up in your basement.